Join the Discussion

Reply
Report this post

David, David, David... Wake up and smell the zeitgeist... get a real good whiff. Put the pieces together... see the bigger picture. What is the percentage of the Establishment press that consistently recognizes and reflects what mainstream American opinion really is? What kind of press produces this level of manipulation? How far may have this media influence over the years actually shifted the mainstream opinion of America -- further to the right -- changing what IS centrist? Aren't governmental agencies supposed to insure that our democracy is not being manipulated: that the press, for example, reflect the full range of American opinion? What does not doing so say about the Government, and the FCC? What does this say about the Establishment's respect for American opinion and democracy? What does this say about the validity of our democracy and our government? "[N]ot all politicians and pundits are completely ignorant of life outside the palace walls". Huh? I think VERY FEW of them are unaware of what mainstream American opinion is; they just pretend otherwise, for the reasons you gave. So please, put the pieces all together. What kind of media system are we living under? What kind of political system? Can you describe that in a way that will really convey its true character, of the military-industrial-media-government complex that we are living in -- that reality?

Reply
Report this post

Here's the bottom line. Either Obama wins Ohio and Pennsylvania or he's a dead duck. Obama carried five counties out of Ohio's eighty eight in the Democratic primary. It is a state loaded with Reagan Democrats who will very likely see fifty percent or more of that contingent vote for McCain for reasons of their own racial bigotry. Obama cannot win there. He will swear that he can and his people will swear they can win Ohio...but they never will. So, there's two out of three of that famous troika from 2000 and 2004, gone. That means he won't win the race. Mathematically he can cobble together Virginia with a few states in the southwest and possibly pull it out. Sure, technically speaking he can do that. But no one's ever done it before. EVER...and he's already polling approximately where Kerry and Gore were polling at this point in their individual races. What does it mean? The race is probably over. It was over at Super Tuesday, when the party nominated someone whom they knew damn well couldn't win Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Reply
Report this post

You speak for all of us who are worried that Barack Obama is drifting away. He doesn't need to do it. The Democrats lost their way; sold themselves to the big money media and entertainment. We used to call them limousine liberals. They still ride in limousines, but they sure as hell are not liberals. Don't leave us, Barack. Stick to the young, the real middle class (not the 250 K+ crowd with their SUVs who call us whiners when we complain about $4 gas). Get them excited, like you did in the primaries. You'll win in a landslide and bury Karl Rove for ever. Tom

Reply
Report this post

Another apt piece of journalism for our side. Sure they have been brainwashing everyone to hand them our butts without so much as a fight for the past (seeming eternity). But I think the tables are going to start to turn this year. Thanks, in large part to honest and objective reportage such as this. Keep it up, David. Seriously. Don't know what we would do without you, sir.

Reply
Report this post

Humans are facing fundamental global forces as implacable and of a magnitude not known since the beginning of the last ice age. The magnitude and duration of the developing cataclysm are simply, (scientific), best guesses proposed by the best minds of our species, based upon fragmentary clues from past epochs. Catastrophe theory suggests that forces slowly and steadily accumulating over a long time scale may suddenly "tip over". The disappearing polar ice and the glaciers suggests that such a tip-over point may be occurring within our lifetimes. We humans are like deer caught in the headlights of an onrushing vehicle. Neither we nor the deer fully understand the forces behind the light. Like the deer we may not even know the questions. In this present American political struggle we are still acting as if "all politics are local". Many want Obama give us local answers to our local questions. We still do not understand that the answers and solution to the trials we face are as yet almost unknowable. I do know one thing for certain: I want a leader who has the charisma to gather around him the best minds our species has to offer, the humility to listen to what they have to offer, the intelligence to make some sense of it all, the lucidity to clarify for us the hazards we face, the compassion and acumen to consider our collective wisdom and finally the courage to act. Obama may not be all of these things to all of us, but he is the best we have right now and may be the best we ever will have. David Chisholm

Reply
Report this post

Perhaps the meaning of "the center", as it's used in the media, is midway between extremes, rather than "the center of the electorate", as Sirota's column suggests it should be. That seems to fit the data, anyway. Let me suggest that the media expression is a misnomer, a failed attempt to find the right word. The behavior is otherwise correctly described (in the media) as attempting to appeal to voters who don't share the candidate's personal views, in hopes of attracting more voters--still need them to get elected, after all. The FISA vote was pretty harmless, numerically, since Sen. Obama was casting his vote with a decisive majority. If it was strategic--and every word, every action, needs to be strategic from now till November--then perhaps his vote was to demonstrate to those "other" voters that he is capable of tossing them a bone, even if it's only a token bone. I interpret all of Sen. Obama's apparent shifts in position, and his softening of rhetoric, the same basic way the media portrays it: an attempt to convince doubters that he won't stonewall their viewpoints. It's all designed to get that first term. Speaking as one who shares not a single position with Sen. Obama, let me assure the rest of you that I don't doubt his intentions for a moment. If he gets elected, I think you'll be pleased to find he hasn't really changed a bit from the guy you supported in the primaries.

Reply
Report this post

Footnote to my previous post: There will be one small difference between Sen. Obama in the primary, and President Obama, should that come to pass. President Obama will not be bringing the troops home from Iraq. That was a "campaign promise" that was completely divorced from any reasonable reality. So, those of you who supported him for that promise will be disappointed. But, otherwise, he'll be the same guy as President, with the same socialist agenda that he ran on in the primary. I trust you won't be too upset with him for being a rather normal politician, saying what it took to get the votes he needed, even if it was at your expense. The rest of us never believed he represented any sort of paradigm shift, so we won't be surprised.